On Mar 10, 2:47 am, A <anonymous.rubbert...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 9, 9:01 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>> > On Mar 9, 2:01 pm, Gerry <ge...@math.mq.edu.au> wrote:>> > > On Mar 9, 4:31 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape.net> wrote:>> > > > Obispo de Tolosa <MathMan...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1046383277.347140.1268110066496.JavaMail.root@gallium.mathforum.org:>> > > > > Granville is obviously the greatest living mathematician, and perhaps> > > > > the only one.>> > > > > The late Dr. Schramm was great precisely because he did NOT receive a> > > > > Fields medal.>> > > > Cool! I never got one either!>> > > I was rooting for you, Bart. I couldn't believe they gave it> > > to that Wiles guy instead.> > > --> > > GM>> > They actually didn't give it to Wiles: he only got to receive a> > special IMU silver plaque in 1998, because at the time the proof was> > finally presented with corrections and stuff, in 1994, he was over 40> > years old, which is the stupid and ridiculous age limit Fields Medal> > have and is why, in true comparison, the Fields Medal doesn't hold a> > candle to the Noble Prizes.>> > We really need a mathematics prize comparable to the Nobel Prize in> > importance and projection: the Fields Medal is ONLY for a particular> > achievment AND under the age of 40, and not for mathematical> > importance/transcendence, which should be, imo, without any age> > restriction.> > Perhaps the closest one is the Wolf Prize, but still far behind the> > importance of a Nobel, comparatively.>> > Tonio>> How about the Abel Prize?-